Supreme Court of Colorado, 1972

Bauch v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Colorado · Decided May 22, 1972 · Per Curiam

497 P.2d 698; 178 Colo. 308; 1972 Colo. LEXIS 833 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

27 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Proposed Initiative Concerning Drinking Age in Colorado (Colo. 1984)
Submission of Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74 (Colo. 1993)
In re Proposed Initiative Concerning "State Personnel System" (Colo. 1984)
Matter of Title, Ballot Title, Etc. (Colo. 1982)
Spelts v. Klausing (Colo. 1982)
In re Proposed Initiated Constitutional Amendment of Education, 1984 (Colo. 1984)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Including the Estimate of Fiscal Impact & Explanation Thereof Pertaining to the Mineral Production Tax Initiative Adopted on January 27, 1982 (Colo. 1982)
In re the Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause & Summary Pertaining to the Branch Banking Initiative Adopted on March 19, 1980, & Amended on April 8, 1980 (Colo. 1980)
Matter of School Pilot Program (Colo. 1994)
In re Prop. Init." Fair Fishing" (Colo. 1994)
In re Prop. Init." Auto. Ins. Coverage" (Colo. 1994)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on School Pilot Program (Colo. 1994)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Adopted February 10, 1992 (Colo. 1992)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause Approved September 4, 1991 (Colo. 1992)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Approved February 12, 1992 (Colo. 1992)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Adopted February 19, 1992 (Colo. 1992)
Montero v. Meyer (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1992)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause Adopted April 4, 1990, Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on Parental Notification of Abortions for Minors (Colo. 1990)
In re the Title, Ballot Title, Submission Clause, & Summary, Adopted April 4th, 1990, Pertaining to the Proposed Initiative on Surface Mining (Colo. 1990)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Adopted May 16, 1990 (Colo. 1990)
In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary, Including the Estimate of Fiscal Impact & Explanation Thereof, Pertaining to the Increase of Taxes on Tobacco Products Initiative Adopted on March 2, 1988 (Colo. 1988)
Matter of Proposed Constitutional Amend. (Colo. 1988)
Kimmelman v. Burgio (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985)
In re the Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause, & Summary Pertaining to the Sale of Table Wine in Grocery Stores Initiative Adopted on March 24, 1982 (Colo. 1982)
In re: Second Initiated Constitutional Amendment Respecting Rights of the Public to Uninterrupted Service by Public Employees of 1980 (Colo. 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*310 In this original proceeding brought under C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1(2), Petitioners seek to have this Court hold insufficient a ballot title and submission clause assigned to a proposed initiative amendment to the constitution of Colorado by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Reporter of the Supreme Court acting under the provisions of C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1(1).

Section 70-1-1(2) provides that upon the filing of such a proceeding the Supreme Court shall place the matter at the head of the calendar and dispose of it summarily either affirming the action of the board or reversing it. We affirm the action of the board and hold the title and submission clause affixed by the said board to be sufficient.

We have arrived at this conclusion by applying the principles enunciated in relevant Colorado cases that in a proceeding of this sort (1) we must not in any way concern ourselves with the merit or lack of merit of the proposed amendment since, under our system of government, that resolution rests with the electorate; (2) all legitimate presumptions must be indulged in favor of the propriety of the board’s action; and (3) only in a clear case should a title prepared by the board be held invalid. Our case law on this subject is epitomized in Say v. Baker, 137 Colo. 155, 322 P.2d 317.

The action of the Respondents, Byron Anderson, Secretary of State, Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General and Irving M. Mehler, Reporter of the Supreme Court, acting as a board under C.R.S. 1963, 70-1-1 in this matter is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.